get_issue_attachment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds that the return is metadata rather than file content, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, size limits, or what happens if the attachment id is invalid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the resource and its returned fields front-loaded. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations covering the safety profile and the description enumerating the returned metadata fields, the agent has enough to call it correctly. The absence of an output schema is partly compensated, though tie-breaking against sibling attachment tools is left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both issueId and attachmentId documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail about how to identify the attachment, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (metadata of one attached file) and parenthetically enumerates what the metadata contains (name, size, mime type). This distinguishes it from content-retrieval siblings like download_issue_attachment, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance is given beyond the implied scope of a single attachment. It does not tell the agent to use list_issue_attachments to enumerate files first or download_issue_attachment to fetch content rather than metadata.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.